Court reaffirms extra confinement for sex predators

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Harsh conditions or a lack of treatment behind bars do not justify releasing a sexual predator a state considers too dangerous to society, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court underscored its position that states can lock up sex offenders after their sentences are over, rejecting the appeal of a six-time rapist from Washington state.

The 8-1 decision said Andre Brigham Young is free to complain about his treatment in court, and said the state has a duty to treat those it involuntarily holds.

''State courts, in addition to federal courts, remain competent to adjudicate and remedy challenges to civil confinement schemes arising under the federal Constitution,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.

The ruling means Young, now held more than a decade beyond his original sentence, will remain in a maximum-security prison indefinitely.

''We are pleased the court reached a conclusion that recognizes the Legislature's right to protect its citizens and also to provide appropriate treatment for sexual predators,'' Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire said in a statement Wednesday.

Sixteen states have passed laws allowing the jailing of sex offenders after their criminal sentences expire. The Supreme Court previously approved the practice, reasoning that it differed little from the common state practice of involuntarily committing the mentally ill for treatment.

Young, convicted of six rapes over a 31-year period, challenged Washington state officials' decision to hold him after the last of his sentences was due to expire in 1990. He claimed the state is unconstitutionally punishing him through poor conditions and the lack of treatment at the island prison where he is held.

''The treatment goal of the statute is a sham,'' his lawyers argued in court papers.

In a separate case, a federal court held the state in contempt in 1999 for failing to comply with an order to improve mental health treatment at the sex-offender facility. Washington state has been spending millions of dollars to improve conditions.

Young's lawyer, Robert Boruchowitz, had no immediate comment, but planned a news conference later Wednesday.

The case is a follow-up to the justices' 1997 ruling in a Kansas case. In that 5-4 ruling, the court said that keeping sexually violent predators locked up, intended to protect society, is not punitive and therefore does not amount to double punishment for the same crime.

Washington state's sexual predator act served as a model for the Kansas statute upheld by the Supreme Court.

In 1990, on the day Young was to complete a prison term for the last of his convictions, state officials transferred him to a new ''special confinement center'' for sexually violent predators.

Young sued the state in 1994, saying he was being denied the mental health or sex offender treatment required under state law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Young, saying he should have a chance to prove to a federal judge that his continued confinement does amount to double punishment.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling and sent the case back to the lower courts.

In this case, the majority started with the premise that Young's confinement was like civil commitment of the mentally ill, and then looked at his claim that conditions of his confinement amount to punishment.

That kind of case-by-case analysis of whether an individual prisoner's confinement was civil or punitive is ''unworkable,'' the court said.

''An act, found to be civil, cannot be deemed punitive 'as applied' to a single individual,'' O'Connor wrote.

Stevens noted Young's ''detailed allegations,'' and said he ought to have the chance to air his double jeopardy claim.

''If proved, those allegations establish not just that those detained pursuant to the statute are treated like those imprisoned for violations of Washington's criminal laws, but that, in many respects, they receive significantly worse treatment,'' Stevens wrote.